I'm inclined to side with Honolulu –
there is this tendency in many of these 'finless' builds to emulate
fin-function via some other design element. I'm also inclined to
agree with his point about the evolution of surfboad design in general –
there are really good reasons why modern surfboards have
the characteristics they do.
That said, my fascination with finless
boards arose from my interest in a minimum bottom planing surface
area and optimum surface/rail geometry in stand-up surfing. As the
answer was likely to vary with conditions and rider, it [the answer]
was more likely to come in the form of a range.
The skimboards of skimboarders who make
it into shore break are likely close to that optimum, both in terms
surface area and surface/rail geometry, as are products like Morey's
“The One”. The use of modern materials, have allowed many of
these products to pursue a more fundamental strategy in their design.
In particular, the over all geometry of the boards themselves are
less driven by the need for buoyancy, but more by function as it
relates to surfing. And they don't appear to need fins, nor the
emulation of fin-function via some additional design element –
hence they are truly modern finless beasts.
In general, because of their geometry,
the rider once up on his feet, is able to control the bottom plane
with sufficient ease and sensitivity, enabling both his response time
and the impact of his actions to match that of the demands of
stand-up surfing. In effect the surfer is surfing something close to the
minimum bottom plane requirement, as opposed to a whole lot of extra
stuff which has little to do with surfing, but more to do with
paddling around or catching waves for that matter. (Paddling around,
catching waves and surfing are virtually three different sports and
each has there own unique demands. These demands may overlap to some
degree, but the demands of each are still somewhat unique.)
I'm inclined to read the solution which
you've offered as one that already comes with some baggage. Smack me
down if you like, but it's as if you already had a board (with a
particular geometry, volume, etc.) in mind, and then you started to
think about how to solve the control-function for that particular
virtual beastie. I'm not dissing the approach. My guess would be that
this kind of approach has led to a lot of innovation, both directly
and directly. If nothing else you're likely to become far more
knowledgeable with respect to the subtleties of the role of drag as
it applies to fin function. But, in general, the approach does have
its problems, and this sort of ties back into Honolulu's post.
Modern surfboards look the way they
because they have evolved.as a 'system', that is one design element here, assumes
that this other design element will also be present, possible over
there. These kinds of interconnections for the most part are often
assumed and rarely addressed explicitly, and probably for good
reason.
Consider, if I take my (shit-box?) car
and buzz off the roof, would I then have a convertible? No. I'd have
a shit-box with no roof. My you, on sunny days I might be able to
enjoy the same pleasures that a convertible might offer – excluding
any enhanced sex appeal that might actually come from driving around
in a real convertible... after all it's a shit-box without a roof.
The car just doesn't have the full functionality of a true
convertible.
Let's say I solve part of the problem
by making sure I always have an umbrella with me. Great, now if it
rains I'm protected. Mind you, I'll have to drive pretty slow in the
rain with the umbrella up, which is sort of dangerous where I live.
Slow drivers are not very popular, if not a hazard (to the
driver.) So perhaps I should carry some duck tape to secure the
umbrella. …. Perhaps you can see where I'm taking this. “Shit-boxes
with their roofs cut off will not get you laid”... uh, what a
minute... what was the point of this post again?
kc